James Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: >It's been so long now that I cannot remember what drove me to use the >DBC >for this project. I have a number of other projects that do NOT take >"advantage" of the DBC. > >Now I'm wondering what grief and aggravation would I endure if I were >to >decide to free the tables and do away with the DBC. > >First is field names longer than 10 char (there aren't too many of >these) > >Primary key fields? > >What else would recommend a DBC??? > >James E Harvey >Corresponding Officer/M.I.S. >Hanover Shoe Farms, Inc. >www.hanoverpa.com >office: 717-637-8931 >cell: 717-887-2565 >fax: 717-637-6766 >
Stored procedures, human readable field names and code field names, data triggers and remotes views. All can be done in different ways via code. These would be available to ODBC and OLEDB connections only when implemented in the DBC. I don't remember if a fields default value require the DBC or not. I had trouble with DBC bloat, so I now steer clear myself. -- Tracy Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
